## Facts

- A robber stole nearly $30,000 from a cashier’s safe at a United States Air Force base exchange in Plattsburgh, New York, placing the money in a plastic bag taken from a nearby trash can.
- The robber wore a hooded sweatshirt, concealed the lower half of his face with a towel, and wrapped another towel around an arm.
- A witness observed a black object inside the towel and believed it was a gun.
- Another witness testified the robber raised the towel-wrapped arm, pointed it at a woman approaching the cashier’s window, and threatened to kill her.
- About 30 minutes after the robbery, Kaydon Baskerville (an airman stationed at the base) told an acquaintance the exchange had been robbed.
- Roughly three hours later, Baskerville made an almost $6,000 cash down payment on a new car using money still bundled in base-exchange wrappers bearing dates, initials, and an official seal; he spent nearly $2,000 more over the weekend.
- A search of Baskerville’s quarters yielded additional cash (about $1,000–$1,100), a plastic bag matching the type used at the exchange, and clothing matching witness descriptions (including sneakers with a green stripe).
- A footprint found near the exchange shortly after the robbery closely matched the design and wear characteristics of one of Baskerville’s sneakers.
- Baskerville gave inconsistent accounts about the cash, ultimately claiming he borrowed approximately $5,540 from a loan shark; he admitted fabricating a separate “ransom for abducted niece” story to solicit money for a car down payment.
- The trial court instructed the jury that the “display” element was satisfied if the victim was made to believe the object was a firearm or if the defendant held or wrapped the object to create that impression.
- Baskerville was convicted of first-degree robbery and first-degree criminal possession of stolen property; the Appellate Division affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to prove first-degree robbery based on “display[ing] what appears to be” a firearm when no gun was recovered and the object was concealed in a towel.
2. Whether the jury charge on the “display” element improperly permitted conviction based on subjective fear or impression rather than an objectively observable display, requiring reversal.

## Decision

- The New York Court of Appeals held the evidence was legally sufficient for a rational jury to find that the robber displayed what appeared to be a firearm.
- The Court reversed because the jury instruction misstated the statutory “display” requirement by risking conviction based on the victim’s belief without requiring an objective visual manifestation grounded in the defendant’s conduct.
- The order affirming the conviction was reversed and a new trial was ordered.

## Legal Principles

- For first-degree robbery based on “display[ing] what appears to be” a firearm, the prosecution need not produce the weapon or prove it was real or operable.
- The “display” element requires some objective visual manifestation—though the object may be partially concealed—on which a reasonable person could base the belief that the robber has a firearm.
- Verbal threats alone are insufficient; the defendant’s conduct must visually convey the appearance of a firearm.
- A jury charge is reversible error if it allows conviction based solely on the victim’s subjective belief or impression without tying that belief to an objective standard and observable conduct.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals ordered a new trial because the jury was incorrectly instructed on the “display” element of first-degree robbery, even though the evidence (including a towel-wrapped object perceived as a gun and threatening conduct) was sufficient to allow a properly instructed jury to find that the robber displayed what appeared to be a firearm.


People v. Baskerville, 60 N.Y.2d 374, 457 N.E.2d 752 (N.Y. 1983)